It is difficult to get things changed in a democracy. People have different opinions as to what needs to be done and how, and since they vote, they are listened to. For a change of some significance to happen, all centers of power that need to cooperate to make the change happen need to agree to it.

How does it happen?

The situation has to get so bad that all those parties that are needed to stop objecting to the change find it of self interest to cooperate. And that will happen when the situation is so bad that the only other alternative is to yield and stop objecting.

This explains why macro social or economic change in democratic society happens slowly and is only dictated after major deterioration in conditions.

It took a depression for the New Deal to emerge.

It will take a major upheaval of sorts for the society to reduce dependence on government intervention in economic endeavors.

It took Pearl Harbor for the United States to join the war.

It is taking thousands of dead soldiers for United States to get out of Vietnam and Iraq or Afghanistan. How many more wars do we need to stop going to war to solve other people’s problems and focus on home problems?

Democracy is not an efficient system. It takes time for change to be implemented. Not so for a dictatorship. Stalin moved millions of people from one part of the Soviet Union to another part. Germans to Kazakhstan. Tatars to Tatarstan. He pushed through the collectivization of farming although it brought starvation to millions who died in Ukraine. Whoever objected was sent to Siberia.

In a democratic society, what happens does not necessarily resemble what leaders wanted to happen. Political forces come into play and what happens in reality is not what leaders have decided, but what could have been implemented politically.

So you might think dictatorship is the answer. They can make things happen. That is how corporations are run. CEO’s decide and execute their decisions. Fire people. Downsize. Integrate divisions. Sell divisions. Buy and sell basically as they wish.

Yes?

No!

Dictators have a limitation on their power too. And it is the power they have and do not want to lose. They can push only so far before there is a push back. And maybe a revolution of sorts. And they get kicked out. Or get executed like the ruler of Romania or Qadaffi of Libya.

Or a bomb is planted to blow Hitler away. Even Stalin lived in fear of being poisoned.

Much of Putin’s actions can be explained as a reaction to fear of losing power. The Maidan revolution in Ukraine was a revolt against corruption. It could have spread to Moscow which has corruption too. Putin had to do a heroic act to protect his rear end. So he took over Crimea. Then came the uprising of the people who speak Russian and populate Eastern Ukraine. He had to support them. They are Russians who live in Ukraine (or Ukrainians who speak Russian), regardless, he had to support them or he would not be the Russian Hero and his chair would start shaking.

Why go to war to Syria? To divert Russian people’s attention to the economic crisis prevailing in Russia as a result of Putin’s actions. Again, it is to prevent a threat to the throne.

There is no behavior without a reason. And the reason can be devious. But it is a reason.

There is no free for all environment, without limits. We have to understand the limits if we want to change behavior.

It is sort of a simplification to focus on one reason only. There are typically several of them to take in account, and power becomes successful if interests of the top are not in controdiction with the country as a whole. Now it is exactly the time in Russia when it happens.

Brilliant approach, to think from the limits. Must be applied everywhere with the final answer: if the limits are overcame, who will pay for it? With objectives payment from responsible sides. Until that question raise aloud, overcoming limits are payed by somebody else.

Yes! Agree at all.. The weigt of power is the doublesided sword, that has to be under clear and smart control.. As history of Romans told us, all dictators not only have a limitation on their power but also faced the huge risk to lost all achivements of many years of government management per one second.. I think, that main rule of Russian Governmant today is latin Divide et impera.. The internal economic crisis made strong hits on gov strategy and wise decisions based on law and future forecasts.. Ok we live and work in Russia and we believe in sucsess and positive end of its hard time..
Electa una via, non datur recursus ad alteram:)
With kind regards Dear Ichak and ladies who wroughte some intersting opinions..

Services

Let’s connect

Please note:

The insights presented in these blogs are the personal insight of Dr. Ichak Kalderon Adizes and do not necessarily express the opinion or position of the Adizes Institute or its staff individually or as a group.

DISCLAIMER: The insights presented in these blogs are the personal insight of Dr. Ichak Kalderon Adizes and do not necessarily express the opinion or position of the Adizes Institute or its staff individually or as a group.